Sadly, nobody contested some irrelevancies with which Jens intended
to oppose my idea of *-ix developping out of a fundamental need to
distinguish the new feminine from an otherwise homophonous collective
inanimate in *-x.
However, perhaps this means that I've been elected to be Jens'
arch-nemesis >:)
Jens:
> But the only thing that makes a form thematic is the presence of
> the thematic vowel. Thus, to create the thematic optative you
> just add the athematic suffix //-yeH1-// to the thematic vowel,
> this giving /-o-yH1-/. There are no flimsy considerations about
> animacy to confuse this. If you want a collective from an
> athematic stem you just add *-H2, as in prs.ptc. Gk. phéront-a,
> Skt. bhárant-i. And if you want to make it from a thematic stem
> you do the same, only from a thematic stem, as in *náw-a-H2.
Now we're really confusing everything together into one big chaos
soup, aren't we? (Or do we call it a "word salad"?)
There exists a chasm between nominal and adjectival declension
on the one hand and verbal morphology on the other. We cannot
confuse the two by introducing insignificant examples using *bHer-
for the simple fact that thematicism is not employed to make
gender contrasts or any particularly important contrasts as it
does in nouns and adjectives. So the fact that athematic *-ih-
is used with thematic verbs doesn't shock me.
I expect it.
>> Apparently you missed stems ending in *-t-i- which form abstract
>> stems, for example. It may also be at the end of *xawi- "bird"
>> which is an animal most often found in flocks.
>
> That is simply not know. There is no basis for that statement.
Our current understanding of IE morphology is the basis. We see *-i-
whenever there are collective nouns. Very simple. I can hardly see
how abstract *-ti- can be anything other than the substantive *-t-
and a collective *-i-.
An inescapable example is Hittite /dalugasti/ "length" where we see
a derivative of "long" ending with the aforementioned suffix.
In all, if our goal is to truly understand the morphology that we're
all reconstructing here (and I for one am certainly interested in
understanding it rather than using the ol' "we-simply-do-not-know"
copout) then what other analysis of this word can there be? It can
only sensibly be based on a verb *dlegH- "to extend" (sometimes with
the the verbal *n-infix) which has been made into an o-grade aorist
noun stem *dlogH-(e)s- "extension". Then a composite suffix *-ti- for
abstract nouns, representing general ideas, was added. This abstract
suffix is a synthesis of the substantive *-t- and the collective *-i-.
(Afterall, what is more "general" and "abstract" than a collective?)
This analysis properly produces the intended meaning: "length".
So I'm afraid we do know because logic dictates that this is the only
sense we can make of such constructs unless you can come up with
better. That'll be your challenge for the next post.
> I assume with a long tradition that the collective is the old form
> of the feminine, only not "animated" or "individualized". If *all*
> uses of *-H2 are "later", there is no basis for any of them.
Say wha? The *-x was used at an early date even during MIE to
form inanimate collectives (in the form *-hWa). It wasn't a new
suffix; it's in fact VERY old and found in Tyrrhenian. That suffix
was used right to the end. The animatized variant *-ex and its
sister *-ix had developped in early Late IE, from what I can tell,
and were always at the very least animate in gender. This is
what /agricola/ tells us. There is nothing to counter because I'm
simply restating what we already know about IE grammar! Your position
contradicts all this.
By the way, a little nuance to this that confirms everything I'm
saying about early Late IE. You see, the eLIE animate collective in
*-&x-/*-ix- opposes the regular animate thematic *-&-/*-i- but this
parallel is blurred after Schwa Diffusion, producing *-ex/*-ix and
*-o-/*-i-. Something to think about.
> None of this is anywhere near known: it is specifically not known
> that the thematic neuter nom.-acc. sg. *-om was originally a
> genitive plural; the genitive plural does not even *look* that
> way.
It's called adding two and two. We see thematic adjectives in the
default case, the nominative, in *-o-s that are indistinguishable
from genitives; we see Anatolian confusing genitives and adjectives
(a possible IndoIE-Tyrrhenian areal feature, in fact); and we see
stems ending in *-om conveying collective concepts like *yugom
"yoke" and *kmtom "hundred". We see an opposition between genitive
singular *-os and genitive plural *-om; we also see a similar
fortuitous opposition of nominative *-s and accusative *-m, two
pairs of declensional suffixes just ripe for confusion and
interchange. That confusion produced animate adjectives in *-o-s
and inanimates in *-o-m which became animate nouns in *-o-s and
inanimate ones in *-o-m.
Common sense. All the i's are dotted.
> And what nonsense is meant by the argument anyway: neuters did
> not distinguish sg. and pl., so they just took marked plural
> endings and used them in their own lawless way?
Exactly. The perceived "singular" and "plural" of collectives is
semantically the same. The difference between "sky" and "skies"
or "the water" (as in "the ocean") and "the waters" is trivial.
This is a crosslinguistic fact.
So too is the same opposition found in IE. The normal use of *-x
was simply to collectivize the meaning of a noun, not to pluralize
per se anymore than English -hood in "neighbourhood". We know that
inanimates had no special plural form. Speaking of which, a perfect
example. We say "neighbour" (a natural animate) and with -hood, the
new word conveys an abstract collection of "neighbours". It may even
take on new secondary meanings, even more divorced from its derivative,
such as "the general place in which a collection of neighbours live
together".
This is exactly like *-x.
> Nonsense again, these things are reamins of things once of greater
> importance ("that" opposed to "one", being generalized). What is being
> suggested here is deliberate *introduction* of an irregularity without
> any purpose.
The purpose is to keep animacy and inanimacy seperate. To keep the
gender contrast intact.
As I said, your example with *bHer- is irrelevant because the same
fundamental need to oppose the indicative with the subjunctive (one
particular use of thematicism in verbs), or even the flimsy contrast
between thematic and athematic verbs was in no way as vital. There
wasn't the same threat to semantics represented in the verbal
morphology if thematicism went the way of the do-do.
There is only one suffix *-yeh-/*-ih-, used for the optative. There
was no merger of two suffixes with two different functions that we
can tell. However, the use of inanimate *-x versus animate *-ex/*-ix
shows that the threat of a merger here was a real one. And that
merger was evidently unpalatable to IE speakers because gender
contrast was such a fundamental feature of the language, as we all
can see.
> That's neither here nor there. If the added *-H2 conveyed the
> idea of the feminine (even "feminine athematic" [...]
No, _*-ex_ was the feminine while *-x was a collective suffix used
to form inanimate stems.
> the -i- part is still left unaccounted-for.
It's a collective. You're just too stubborn to listen and absorb this
because it would mean that you're wrong and that the feminine is
not reconstructable for the oldest layer of IE as you fantasize.
The nouns ending in *-oi- are probably implicated in this analysis of
*-i- as well as the nouns ending in *-ti- such as *stex-t-i-. Again,
as we see, a substantive *stex-t- being given a collective *-i-.
Painfully obvious and it validates the meaning of the stem to boot.
> Then what is the -i-? An "inanimate stem", we're told; but why
> would that be added to mark the feminine?
No, specifically a _collective_ which may be of either gender, not
specifically inanimate. The point is that it collectivizes just
like *-x does. The union of *-ix merely produces yet another
"collectivizer" but it is specifically used for animate nouns.
>> As per above: *-ix didn't exist prior to its use as a feminine.
Sorry. I worded wrong. Rather *-ix must have existed during *-ex as
another collective animate. This is the summary of what I'm thinking
in chronological order as of this moment:
ITyr => - *-hWa is used as a collectivizing suffix. It becomes
the Tyrrhenian inanimate plural *-qo (Etruscan -cHva
as in /un-cHva/ and /pulum-cHva/). Yes, Tyrrhenian
preserved animate-inanimate gender and might survive
right down to Etruscan.
MIE => - *-hWa is still used as a collectivizing suffix
eLIE => - Syncope affects *-hWa (in line with animate nominative
*-sa), producing *-x.
- Thematicization: *-x => animate *-&x
- To avoid gender homophony in athematic stems,
the animate collectives use *-i-x (a synthesis of
two collectivizing endings).
mLIE => - Schwa Diffusion: *-&x remains because *x is voiceless.
IE => - gender system remains one of animate vs inanimate,
with *-ex/*-ix used for animate collectives and
*-x for inanimate collectives.
after => - feminine derived from animate collectives and therefore
most stems in *-ex/*-ix are now specifically feminine.
> Frightfully complicated, really. For *-o:n and *-onts are two
> stages in the development of the same form. And both stages
> spawned feminines, which turn up as *-n-iH and *-nt-iH respectively.
> Thus if feminines were created before *-o:n was replaced by *-ont-s,
> any language showing *-ont-s must also have shared in the feminines
> of the *-o:n type. Surely it is now simpler to accept the feminine.
No. These feminines can develop semi-independently regardless.
I'm afraid in your obsessively linear way of thinking, it would
certainly appear frightfully complicated, yes. However, I see
your flaw. You haven't learned the principle of wave-particle
duality in linguistics and only think in terms of language
branching.
Wave-particle duality is the understanding that particles can equally
be thought of as waves coming from a source. Likewise, languages
can be thought of not just as rigid lines which circumscribe a
boundary but rather an assymetrical wave from an epicenter of
dialectal innovations which will come to extend over a maximum area
within a given population.
This is the only way to fully understand how satemic dialects do
not constitute a "branch" of IE, but rather represent the spread
of a particular "isogloss", an innovation like many others, which
all came to affect different subsets of an increasingly ununified
language area.
So it's clear in my mind the source of your confusion. This is
not a contradiction within the wave model by any means. We can
imagine an area in which IE is spoken. In that area, a point
within that area representing an innovation (say the beginning of
feminines) begins to spread in the eastern-lying areas. Another
wave representing the change of *-o:n to *-onts is emitted from
another area. Between the two points somewhere near the center,
the two innovations eventually merge, resulting in some dialects
with both feminines AND *-onts, yielding *-ont-ix. The innovation
of *-ont-ix is now yet another wave, spreading from its source to
outlying dialects, even in dialects with only *-on-, producing a
parallel *-on-ix.
Now this starts to sound like a _real_ language and, yes, real
languages can be frightfully complex. All you have to do is check
out the history of Middle English and all its dialects, some of
which didn't make it to the 21st century. Middle English does
the same thing. I looked up the exact origins of "she" once -- I got
a headache after a while; It ain't as straightforward as one might
first think. If you want to get at the truth about IE, prepare to be
frightened in the future.
> No. Comparative evidence is not just zero. None of the
> i-adjectives has any apparent justification from within
> Anatolian.
Why not? Anatolian derives from IE. IE had adjectives in *-i-,
so why can't Anatolian, even if a later development of *meg-i-
is somehow un-IndoEuropean?
>> >> 7. Anatolian's Motions-i, used often in nonneuter strong cases,
>> >> must show *-ix, for what else could it be
[...]
> No, that's a total word salad. Caland is about a stem-replacing
> -i- which is neutral in this respect.
Your "feminine" *-ix is my "animate" *-ix. So why do you need the
feminine here anyways? I don't get it. An animate *-ix would do
just fine. If a thematic variant with *-i- doesn't work, so be it.
But there's no reason why *-ix can't be used as a general _animate_
at the IndoAnatolian stage.
>> Yes, accusative makes sense here because the case is sometimes used
>> to refer to a moment "during which" or a place one is headed towards
>> with verbs like /i:re/, if I recall.
>
> Nice constructive tone, thanks. Let's see if it lasts.
I can only agree with what makes sense to me and this made reasonable
sense.
> Nor does quom have the same stem as tum. Or quam as tam. So this
> would be a third pair of this kind.
That's all nice, but you're relying on ambiguities. Does Hittite /-n/
represent *-m or *-n? What does the second /a/ in /mahhan/ actually
represent as a vowel? For all we know /man/ and /mahhan/ could
derive from something specifically postIE such as an accusative in
early Anatolian *ma-m with a locative *ma-(h)an based on postposed
*en "in" and we all know that similar postpositioning occurs with
other locative particles *bHi and *dHi, among possible others. This
is a competing hypothesis that you can't get rid of. Therefore
/mahhan/ does not serve to adequately oppose what I'm saying. Find
another example.
= gLeN